Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

RE: Free speech?


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Free speech? Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: Free speech? - 12/23/2013 7:41:37 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		When we wall off those we disagree with, when we stop being open to different ideas, when we alienate and label and mock, that's where societies stifle and turn inwards.

Are you asking us to incorporat intolerane into our constitution? To allow these punkassmotherfuckers to express their swill is not the point...that is guaranteed by the constitution. To endeavor to incorporate bigotry or facism into our constitution is not guarateed by the constitution.


America is a nation founded on the idea of a compromise government. It's based on people with opposing ideas sitting down and finding a common meeting ground. It's based on the dialogue between people from all walks of life working together to create a stronger country.


What a total crock of shit. Please list the non land holders who where members of the convention? List the women who were part of the convention? List for us those were not white?
If we read the federalist papers and the anti federalist papers we find virtually no common ground and no dialog only criticism and acrimony.


Moreover, as anyone who has read the Federalist Papers can tell you, one of the things the founders wrestled most with was the fear of the "Tyranny of the majority"-the idea that the majority of a population agreeing on something allowed them to strip the liberties of the minority.

That minority would be the landed gentry who were jelous of the power they had acquired under colonialism and sought to preserve it. This is quite clear from a reading of these two sources.

(in reply to Kana)
Profile   Post #: 161
RE: Free speech? - 12/23/2013 7:55:02 AM   
truckinslave


Posts: 3897
Joined: 6/16/2004
Status: offline 		I just found an excellent piece written about what Robertson actually said (as opposed to ranting mischaracterizations of what he said).

Said article is in the Atlantic

... calling for a boycott or pressuring for Robertson's suspension tells orthodox Christians that their religion is no longer acceptable,

It's not just a war on Christmas; truly it's a war on Christianity.

_____________________________

1. Islam and sharia are indivisible.
2. Sharia is barbaric, homophobic, violent, and inimical to the most basic Western values (including free speech and freedom of religion). (Yeah, I know: SEE: Irony 101).
ERGO: Islam has no place in America.

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 162
RE: Free speech? - 12/23/2013 7:56:14 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: SadistDave

Sometimes the things people say have consequences.

A&E decided they would try to thwack Phil Robertson in the pee pee as a consequence of saying something in a magazine interview.

Wrong...a corporation had a contract with another corporation and party a exercised it's option per said contract. That you wish it to be about someone's pee pee speaks volumns as to your agenda.

After he was "suspended indefinitely" the consequences of A&E's actions were that more people turned out to support Robertson and boycott A&E within 48 hours than signed up for Obamacare since it began in October. I don't normally like to use personal anecdotes, but to give you an example of how people are boycotting A&E, my boss, who is Hindu, has had access to A&E manually blocked on every television in his 17 hotels.

So if his customers were offended by that they could presumabably seek other accomodations.



GLAAD, the homosexuality acceptance enforcement group that started all of this, is dealing with the consequences of their intolerance. They have complained about this being the biggest backlash they've had in years as their phones ring off the hook with calls from angry Duck Dynasty fans and religious folk.

Your courage in publicizing of the extent of religious bigotry in our country is to be aplauded.

So everyone is suffering from the consequences of their actions it seems, but that's not exactly true...

A&E has already finished 9 of the 10 episodes for the next season and they have no intention of re-editing them to exclude Phil Robertson. Indeed, at this stage of the game if they DO edit Phil out, they stand to lose a huge market share because loyal viewers won't tune in if they edit him out after all this drama. At the very worst, he will be removed from the final episode of the season. Unfortunately for the network, A&E needs Duck Dynasty more than Duck Dynasty needs A&E.

I am pretty sure that a&e could buy he duck boys out of petty cash. That the bigots will find another outlet for their swill is a foregone conclusion...total irony if fox were to pick them up. The irony being that fox will not gain market share and will self lable as bigots who cater to bigots.

(in reply to SadistDave)
Profile   Post #: 163
RE: Free speech? - 12/23/2013 8:00:32 AM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		Yeah, war on christianity, they have made wars on everyone else, so I guess it is a matter of free speech to say dickheads are dickheads.  Interestingly enough, it is also accurate.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 164
RE: Free speech? - 12/23/2013 8:38:43 AM   
EdBowie


Posts: 875
Joined: 8/11/2013
Status: offline 		If you knew the theater was on fire, why wouldn't you 'be on board with' warning people?



quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

I am very much in support of free speech, but



There is no "but," MsMJay. You are either on the bus, or you are off the bus. If you do not support freedom of speech when you despise what is being said, then you do not support freedom of speech at all.



So you are on board with shouting fire in a crowded theater?



_____________________________

Reading for understanding, instead of for argumentation, has its advantages.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 165
RE: Free speech? - 12/23/2013 8:50:15 AM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

If you knew the theater was on fire, why wouldn't you 'be on board with' warning people?



quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

I am very much in support of free speech, but



There is no "but," MsMJay. You are either on the bus, or you are off the bus. If you do not support freedom of speech when you despise what is being said, then you do not support freedom of speech at all.



So you are on board with shouting fire in a crowded theater?





I am sorry that you were not aware of the caviat about free speech being limited and the analogy of shouting fire in a crowded theater is pretty well known. That I failed to stipulate what is well known about that doctrin ie: there is no fire, I do apologize to you and any other who is so ignorant as to not understand my meaning.

< Message edited by thompsonx -- 12/23/2013 8:51:01 AM >

(in reply to EdBowie)
Profile   Post #: 166
RE: Free speech? - 12/23/2013 9:08:01 AM   
GotSteel


Posts: 5871
Joined: 2/19/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave
It's not just a war on Christmas; truly it's a war on Christianity.


Woah, wait a sec, this is exactly what you were advocating for a bit ago:

quote:


ORIGINAL: truckinslave
We should all be free to be offended, and to offend.


This is what it looks like when the rest of us get offended by a certain sort of Christianity's war on the rest of us.

(in reply to truckinslave)
Profile   Post #: 167
RE: Free speech? - 12/23/2013 9:11:40 AM   
EdBowie


Posts: 875
Joined: 8/11/2013
Status: offline 		There is no such caveat, you were flinging a sound bite, instead of offering up something substantive.

The person you were addressing has made it beyond clear where they stand, and your sandbox sophistry is a waste of time. You needed to be called on it.


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

quote:

ORIGINAL: EdBowie

If you knew the theater was on fire, why wouldn't you 'be on board with' warning people?



quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx


quote:

ORIGINAL: TheHeretic


quote:

ORIGINAL: MsMJAY

I am very much in support of free speech, but



There is no "but," MsMJay. You are either on the bus, or you are off the bus. If you do not support freedom of speech when you despise what is being said, then you do not support freedom of speech at all.



So you are on board with shouting fire in a crowded theater?





I am sorry that you were not aware of the caviat about free speech being limited and the analogy of shouting fire in a crowded theater is pretty well known. That I failed to stipulate what is well known about that doctrin ie: there is no fire, I do apologize to you and any other who is so ignorant as to not understand my meaning.



_____________________________

Reading for understanding, instead of for argumentation, has its advantages.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 168
RE: Free speech? - 12/23/2013 10:35:57 AM   
Politesub53


Posts: 14862
Joined: 5/7/2007
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave

I just found an excellent piece written about what Robertson actually said (as opposed to ranting mischaracterizations of what he said).

Said article is in the Atlantic

... calling for a boycott or pressuring for Robertson's suspension tells orthodox Christians that their religion is no longer acceptable,

It's not just a war on Christmas; truly it's a war on Christianity.


The piece you link to is both pathetic and pedantic. It claims Robertson didnt actually equate being gay is linked to bestiality, he sure as hell meant it leads to it though. It seems to me if anyone needs to read what was actually said, then its you.

quote:

“Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says.

From GQ






(in reply to truckinslave)
Profile   Post #: 169
RE: Free speech? - 12/23/2013 12:10:44 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: GotSteel


quote:

ORIGINAL: truckinslave
We should all be free to be offended, and to offend.


That's exactly what happened.


My sentiments exactly!
Of course the Anal - Retentives think it's a "crime" to,..."offend" someone.
But, they have no problem calling someone who disagrees with them a racist or a bigot.
So, they believe in "free speech" too, just as long as you agree with them.

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to GotSteel)
Profile   Post #: 170
RE: Free speech? - 12/23/2013 12:15:16 PM   
mnottertail


Posts: 60698
Joined: 11/3/2004
Status: offline 		The anal retentives are the ones that imagine they say this, and them say that.  They are offensive.

_____________________________

Have they not divided the prey; to every man a damsel or two? Judges 5:30


(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 171
RE: Free speech? - 12/23/2013 12:33:10 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		There is no such caveat, you were flinging a sound bite, instead of offering up something substantive.

Omg are you the only person on the planet who is unaware of that limit on free speech?

The person you were addressing has made it beyond clear where they stand,


The person I was addressing made some foolish statements and I pointed it out.


and your sandbox sophistry is a waste of time.

Well I am old and I have nothing to do and lots of time to do it in so I will waste my time as I choose.

You needed to be called on it.

Coddleme is such a warm fuzy place where people like you feel the need to call on people like me.

< Message edited by thompsonx -- 12/23/2013 12:44:56 PM >

(in reply to EdBowie)
Profile   Post #: 172
RE: Free speech? - 12/23/2013 12:42:49 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline 		My sentiments exactly!
Of course the Anal - Retentives think it's a "crime" to,..."offend" someone.

No one anal rententive or other wise has said this is a crime...well no one except you.

But, they have no problem calling someone who disagrees with them a racist or a bigot.

If it is the truth then it is protected free speech. If not then there are lible and slander laws to deal with that.

So, they believe in "free speech" too, just as long as you agree with them.

You seem to be missing the point here. These punkassmotherfuckers are free to say any fucking stupid ass thing they choose that is not illegal. Those who are offended by it are free to respond in kind or ignore the borish behavior of rich fools.
Free speech does not mean you can run your mouth with out people mentioning that only shit is coming out. Free speech does not mean that anyone has to agree with mind numbing stupidity.
They are free to say stupid things and others are free to point out how fucking stupid they are to say such stupid things.


< Message edited by thompsonx -- 12/23/2013 12:44:14 PM >

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 173
RE: Free speech? - 12/23/2013 1:10:21 PM   
popeye1250


Posts: 18104
Joined: 1/27/2006
From: New Hampshire
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

My sentiments exactly!
Of course the Anal - Retentives think it's a "crime" to,..."offend" someone.

No one anal rententive or other wise has said this is a crime...well no one except you.

But, they have no problem calling someone who disagrees with them a racist or a bigot.

If it is the truth then it is protected free speech. If not then there are lible and slander laws to deal with that.

So, they believe in "free speech" too, just as long as you agree with them.

You seem to be missing the point here. These punkassmotherfuckers are free to say any fucking stupid ass thing they choose that is not illegal. Those who are offended by it are free to respond in kind or ignore the borish behavior of rich fools.
Free speech does not mean you can run your mouth with out people mentioning that only shit is coming out. Free speech does not mean that anyone has to agree with mind numbing stupidity.
They are free to say stupid things and others are free to point out how fucking stupid they are to say such stupid things.




My sentiments exactly!

_____________________________

"But Your Honor, this is not a Jury of my Peers, these people are all decent, honest, law-abiding citizens!"

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 174
RE: Free speech? - 12/23/2013 1:17:32 PM   
Hillwilliam


Posts: 19394
Joined: 8/27/2008
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

My sentiments exactly!
Of course the Anal - Retentives think it's a "crime" to,..."offend" someone.

No one anal rententive or other wise has said this is a crime...well no one except you.

But, they have no problem calling someone who disagrees with them a racist or a bigot.

If it is the truth then it is protected free speech. If not then there are lible and slander laws to deal with that.

So, they believe in "free speech" too, just as long as you agree with them.

You seem to be missing the point here. These punkassmotherfuckers are free to say any fucking stupid ass thing they choose that is not illegal. Those who are offended by it are free to respond in kind or ignore the borish behavior of rich fools.
Free speech does not mean you can run your mouth with out people mentioning that only shit is coming out. Free speech does not mean that anyone has to agree with mind numbing stupidity.
They are free to say stupid things and others are free to point out how fucking stupid they are to say such stupid things.




My sentiments exactly!


Pops and Thompson have agreed. the end of the world is near


ETA. I agree as well, start digging a deep hole folks.


_____________________________

Kinkier than a cheap garden hose.

Whoever said "Religion is the opiate of the masses" never heard Right Wing talk radio.

Don't blame me, I voted for Gary Johnson.

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 175
RE: Free speech? - 12/23/2013 1:25:38 PM   
EdBowie


Posts: 875
Joined: 8/11/2013
Status: offline 		It's a target rich environment for shooting down bullshit. Thanks for doing your part.


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

There is no such caveat, you were flinging a sound bite, instead of offering up something substantive.

Omg are you the only person on the planet who is unaware of that limit on free speech?

The person you were addressing has made it beyond clear where they stand,


The person I was addressing made some foolish statements and I pointed it out.


and your sandbox sophistry is a waste of time.

Well I am old and I have nothing to do and lots of time to do it in so I will waste my time as I choose.

You needed to be called on it.

Coddleme is such a warm fuzy place where people like you feel the need to call on people like me.



_____________________________

Reading for understanding, instead of for argumentation, has its advantages.

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 176
RE: Free speech? - 12/23/2013 2:01:59 PM   
thompsonx


Posts: 23322
Joined: 10/1/2006
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: popeye1250


quote:

ORIGINAL: thompsonx

My sentiments exactly!
Of course the Anal - Retentives think it's a "crime" to,..."offend" someone.

No one anal rententive or other wise has said this is a crime...well no one except you.

But, they have no problem calling someone who disagrees with them a racist or a bigot.

If it is the truth then it is protected free speech. If not then there are lible and slander laws to deal with that.

So, they believe in "free speech" too, just as long as you agree with them.

You seem to be missing the point here. These punkassmotherfuckers are free to say any fucking stupid ass thing they choose that is not illegal. Those who are offended by it are free to respond in kind or ignore the borish behavior of rich fools.
Free speech does not mean you can run your mouth with out people mentioning that only shit is coming out. Free speech does not mean that anyone has to agree with mind numbing stupidity.
They are free to say stupid things and others are free to point out how fucking stupid they are to say such stupid things.




My sentiments exactly!


I am glad you have finally come to the conclusion that I am seldom wrong.

(in reply to popeye1250)
Profile   Post #: 177
RE: Free speech? - 12/23/2013 2:56:41 PM   
jlf1961


Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline 		I have no problem with Phil Roberson stating his religious beliefs, he said nothing that was not in the bible, so how can you complain, unless you want to rewrite both old and new testaments of the bible.
I do have a problem with the statement he made about African Americans being better off before the civil rights laws that gave them the same rights as white Americans.
Remember this, Jesus was a first century Jew in Galilee, as such he would not have been Caucasian. he would have been dark skinned, and barely indistinguishable from Arabs and Palestinians today.
With those facts, he would have not been welcomed in a whites only church, or school, or anywhere else that people of color were denied in the south.
As I said, the bible is quite specific about homosexuality, however, remember a mortal sin is denying the Holy Spirit or suicide. Homosexuality is not a choice, and since my daughter is Bi, I accept her lifestyle, but leave the judgement of that lifestyle up to god.
I have had baptists, fundamentalist independent baptists and others tell me I am going to hell for being catholic, enjoying dancing, whiskey and being married four times.
I even had an ex wife tell me I pray wrong.
From 325 AD until 1517 there were basically three churches, the Catholics, the eastern orthodox, and the Agnostics. Yes there various small sects, but nothing very big.
I have read both the King James and the Catholic versions of the bible a number of times. The Catholic version of the bible contains the entire original old testament, meaning the Catholic bible has 73 books and the protestant bible has 66.
Personally, I feel that the interpretation of the bible is a personal thing. If God didnt want us to think for ourselves, then he messed up giving us free will.
Phil Robertson is free to speak his religious beliefs, but do you really think that African Americans were better off before the Civil Rights laws were passed?

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to thompsonx)
Profile   Post #: 178
RE: Free speech? - 12/23/2013 2:59:10 PM   
truckinslave


Posts: 3897
Joined: 6/16/2004
Status: offline
quote:

It claims Robertson didnt actually equate being gay is linked to bestiality, he sure as hell meant it leads to it though. It seems to me if anyone needs to read what was actually said, then its you.


Utter bullshit. Here's what he said.


quote:

“Everything is blurred on what’s right and what’s wrong,” he says. “Sin becomes fine.”

What, in your mind, is sinful?

Start with homosexual behavior and just morph out from there. Bestiality, sleeping around with this woman and that woman and that woman and those men,” he says. Then he paraphrases Corinthians: “Don’t be deceived. Neither the adulterers, the idolaters, the male prostitutes, the homosexual offenders, the greedy, the drunkards, the slanderers, the swindlers—they won’t inherit the kingdom of God. Don’t deceive yourself. It’s not right.”


He is not saying that homosexuality leads to bestiality any more than he is saying it leads to heterosexual promiscuity.
He is expressing two pretty standard bits of Protestant theology: sin is sin, and homosexual acts are sins.
There is neither causality nor progression in his statements.

_____________________________

1. Islam and sharia are indivisible.
2. Sharia is barbaric, homophobic, violent, and inimical to the most basic Western values (including free speech and freedom of religion). (Yeah, I know: SEE: Irony 101).
ERGO: Islam has no place in America.

(in reply to Politesub53)
Profile   Post #: 179
RE: Free speech? - 12/23/2013 3:01:38 PM   
truckinslave


Posts: 3897
Joined: 6/16/2004
Status: offline
quote:

Pops and Thompson have agreed. the end of the world is near


Phil Robertson is just a uniter.

_____________________________

1. Islam and sharia are indivisible.
2. Sharia is barbaric, homophobic, violent, and inimical to the most basic Western values (including free speech and freedom of religion). (Yeah, I know: SEE: Irony 101).
ERGO: Islam has no place in America.

(in reply to Hillwilliam)
Profile   Post #: 180
Page:   <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: Free speech? Page: <<   < prev  7 8 [9] 10 11   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy

0.109